ADLER'S INTERPRETATION OF EARLY RECOLLECTIONS:HISTORICAL ACCOUNT

HEINZ L. ANSBACHERl

University of Vermont

Interpretation of early recollections has become the outstanding,most characteristic, and most useful method in Adlerian psychology.Adler considered "the significance of early recollections one of themost important discoveries of Individual Psychology" (11, p. 121).

Together with an analysis of the individual's family constellation,primarily elaborated by Dreikurs (20), it is today regarded by manyas the basis of Adlerian personality assessment, or understanding of aperson's life style. The objective of the present study is to explore theorigin of this method.

For those less familiar with it, we should like to resolve at the out­set the apparent paradox that Adlerian psychology is indeed present­and future-oriented, goal-oriented, rather than past-oriented, andyet goes into the individual's past, asking for his early recollections.The paradox is easily resolved if one realizes that in Adler's concep­tion man is an active, purposeful, partly self-determining organism,rather than a passive, merely reactive mechanism. This permits thefollowing considerations: (a) A recollection is an action of the in­dividual, rather than being "caused" by a particular experience; he"chose" to retain this particular incident. (b) The recollection is toan unknown degree at variance from objective facts and to this extentthe individual's own construction. (c) Within a given recollection,how the individual responded to the situation is more important thanthe situation itself. Through these considerations the recollection isused in therapy to show the individual how he typically acts andfaces the future, and that he carries this picture with him as a me­mento or warning from his childhood, for future action.

RECOLLECTIONS AS CONSTRUCTIONS

One of Adler's first statements on recollections was: "A person'strue attitude toward life can be discerned from his earliest dreams andrecollected experiences, proving that such memories are also con-

lFor reprints write to author, Department of Psychology, University ofVermont, John Dewey Hall, Burlington, Vermont 05401.

135

HEINZ L. ANSBACHER

structed according to a planful procedure" (z, p. 99). He made thisstatement during his presentation at the Vienna PsychoanalyticSociety in 1911 which marked his separation from Freud. In theseearly days Adler generally mentioned and used recollections togetherwith dreams.

A recollection as a purposeful construction was quite at variancefrom Freud's concept of early memories as screens for traumaticsexual experiences. Adler had expressed this difference from Freudas early as 1907. In Adler's view it was not particularly the neuroticwho repressed sexual traumas and disguised them by screen memories,but rather it was the "nonneurotic individuals who have kept secrettheir sexual traumata." And, most importantly, "One must notoverrate the trauma." Instead one must understand that "the con­stitution finds the sexual trauma" (Z3, p. 25:1, ita!' ours). Knowingthat Adler used biological metaphors at that time, 1907, as in hisStudy of Organ Inferiority (1), we can substitute "individual" for·'constitution." The above quoted sentence thus means, the individualis actively selecting from the environment rather than being merelypassively exposed to stimuli from the environment.

In 191Z Adler's major work, The Neurotic Constitution (3) ap­peared.2 In this book Adler considered memory to have an apper­ceptive function "subordinated to the guiding fiction" (p. 68). Theguiding fiction was the assumption "that the child has found a unitaryfixed point outside himself toward which he strives with his psycho­logical growth energies" (p. 66). "The effective point outside thebodily sphere toward which the psyche orients itself is the center ofgravity of human thinking,feeling and willing. And the mechanism ofthe apperceptive memory ... changes from an objectively functioningsystem into a subjectively working schema modified by the fiction of thefuture personality" (p. 68, ita!' in original). By such psychologicalmechanisms and readinesses "our entire perceptual orbit becomeslimited" (p. 68). Adler refers here to Charcot, Kant, and James.There is also a footnote mentioning Bergson, to which we shall returnlater.

Regarding the applicability of these considerations to diagnosis andtreatment Adler states: "The working method of our conscious and

2The title of the book was Ooer den 1leTliosen CharaKter, the exact translationof which would be, On the Nervous Character. However, the book was translatedand has become known under the title given above. We are therefore using thistitle although we shall not be using the translation of the book itself because it isunsatisfactory.

I

1~

ADLER'S INTERPRETATION OF EARLY RECOLLECTIONS 137

unconscious memory ... follows the personality ideal" (p. 74). There­fore, "each of the abstract neurotic guiding lines ... may be accessibleto consciousness in a memory image, or may be made accessible insuch an image" (P.79). In the neurotic, the memory image may oftenbe of a seemingly "traumatic" nature. However,None of these memory images, childhood fantasies, ever functioned pathogenicallylike a psychic trauma. Only at the onset of the neurosis •.. are the appropriatememory images brought out from material of the distant past. They becomesignificant on account of their usefulness in making neurotic behavior possible andin interpreting it, that is on account of their pertinent relationship (p. 79).

In summary, memory is "tendentious" (p. 178) in that it supportsthe tendency of the individual. Or, "The neurotic does not sufferfrom his reminiscences, he makes them" (p. 100, ital. ours), anduses them for his purposes (p. ISS). "The significance for the psyche,especially the neurotic psyche, rests in the particular selection of thesememory traces and their tendentious connection with the neuroticapperception" (p. 179).

FOCUSING ON EARLIEST RECOLLECTIONS

At the time of his writing the Neurotic Constitution Adler did notyet distinguish earliest recollections from what he called apperceptiveand tendentious memory in general. In fact he speaks in this bookonly once of childhood recollections as such, which he does in thepassage, the preparation for an eventual neurosis "can be discernedmost clearly in the childhood recollections, frequently recurringdreams, facial and general expressions, childrens' play, and theirfantasies about eventual occupations and the future" {J, p. 86).

There is, in addition, one footnote in which earliest childhood recol­lections are mentioned specifically, as follows: "Individual Psychology... attaches great importance to the understanding of earliest child­hood recollections and has shown that they represent telltale signsfrom the time of the construction of the life style" <3, p. 8on).3 Butthis footnote was not added until the 1928 edition. The lateness ofthis addition is attested to by the inclusion of the term "life style"which Adler did not use until 1926. In 1912, when earliest recollec­tions were not yet conceived as something in their own right, the

8Adler spoke variously of first, oldest, and earliest recollections. We shallfollow the recommendation of Mosak (22), and use only "early" or "earliest"recollections in translating the various terms of Adler and in our own writing.

HEINZ L. ANSBACHER

entire area of memory and recollections still played a less importantrole than dreams and their interpretation.4

Adler dealt with earliest recollections specifically first in a paper onsleep disturbances (4) published in 1913. It included two cases, oneof which was concerned only with thoughts upon awakening and adream of the patient. The second case also starts with the thoughtsupon awakening during the night, but links these to a series of earlyrecollections. The subject is a physician who remembers from hisearly childhood several encounters with death and who then decidedto become a physician to combat death and the fear of it. His thoughtsthat caused the insomnia that night were still about how to save lives.

Adler considered this case so important that he included it in twocollections of papers. The first, Heilen und Bilden, published in 1914,included also papers by his colleagues and was never translated intoEnglish; the second, Praxis und Theorie der Individualpsychologie,published in 1920, included only papers by him and was translated.The first gives only the case of the physician, under the title, "AContribution to the Psychology of a Physician's Vocational Choice"(5), while the second reproduces the entire original paper (6). Thesetwo volumes, incidentally, together with the Neurotic Constitution,represent Adler's three fundamental works.

The physician in this paper turned out to be Adler himself. Thisbecame evident from a little known autobiographical paper by Adler(12) which includes among other recollections also those of the physi­cian, but particularly through Phyllis Bottome's biography pub­lished after Adler's death. This biography contains three pages ofearliest recollections written by him "for the guidance of his futurebiographer" (19, p. 30 ). These again widely overlap with those of thephysician so that there can be no doubt that the physician is Adler.In fact, already the original 1913 paper had virtually revealed theautobiographical nature of the case, in that it contained the passage:"This little analysis was done during the writing of my book" (4, p.931). This passage, however, was deleted when the paper was re­printed in the two collections. For us it is, additionally, a valuableconfirmation that Adler's interest in earliest recollections began whilehe was working on the Neurotic Constitution.

4This statement is based on an examination of the very extensive index foundin the recent German edition of the Neurotic Constitution, edited by ProfessorWolfgang Metzger, to which we are referring here throughout. There we counted59 entries for dreams and derivative words, and only '25 entries for memory andmemory images, including the two on childhood recollections quoted above.

ADLER'S INTERPRETATION OF EARLY RECOLLECTIONS 139

Adler's interpretation of his early recollections was actually quitelimited, referring only to the occupational choice and the fact thatupon awakening that night his thoughts were again concerned withthe same general theme. From this he made an inference to thegeneral outlook on life. A comment by Adler elsewhere makes thisexplicit: "The early childhood recollections, like the fantasies ofvocational choice, contain always the effective outlook on life (gestal­tende Weltanschauung), regardless of whether it is a matter of genuine,fantasied, or reconstructed (Birstein)5 recollections" (2, p. I07n).

In concluding this section it seems worth noting that Adler beganone of his most important contributions, the interpretation of earlyrecollections, by interpreting his own recollections--just as Freudbegan dream interpretation by interpreting his own dreams.

PAUL SCHRECKER

In the paper in which Adler gave his own earliest recollections, headded to the sentence, "Then I arrived at the occupational choice ofmedicine, to overcome death and the fear of death" (6, p. 179), afootnote. The footnote reads: "On the significance of death forphilosophizing see P. Schrecker, Bergson's Philosophy oj Personality.Munich: Reinhardt, 1912."8 Adler mentions Schrecker on twofurther occasions, on both of which he shares with Schrecker creditfor the understanding of early recollections. On the first occasion,also a footnote, in 1914, Adler says, "The tendentious construction orretention of earliest childhood recollections has been pointed out byme (Neurotic Constitution) and Schrecker (Congress of Psychotherapy,Vienna, 1913)" (8, p. 17Sn). The other mention is in the text of amonograph first published in 1917, and reads, "I and Schrecker havepointed out the falsifying tendency of childhood recollections in favorof the life plan" (10, p. 12).

While nothing is known directly about the relationship betweenAdler and Schrecker, we can only make inferences. There are, how­ever, the two contributions by Schrecker which Adler cited, both ofwhich were published.

5J. Birstein whom Adler credits for the above important conception partici­pated in Adler's meetings at that time, 1913, and published several papers in theZentralblall fur Psychoanalyse und Psychotherapie, then edited by Stekei, beforeAdler had founded his own journal. Birstein's location was given as Odessa.

GIn the translation Bergson's name is omi tted from the ti cle.

HEINZ L. ANSBACHER

Publications

On early recollections. Schrecker's paper read at the Congress waspublished immediately after, under the title, "Individual PsychologicalSignificance of First Childhood Recollections" (25). It is the firstpaper on this topic. But it is also still very worth reading-beyond itshistorical interest. Yet it has to date been completely overlooked inthe Adlerian literature. Reference to the published paper was neversubstituted for the Congress reference, despite numerous subsequentprintings of the German book in which Adler's paper with this refer­ence was included. Worse yet, in the English edition Schrecker'sname was omitted and Adler given credit for the Congress paper(9, p. ~42n). Nor is the paper listed among the 337 items of Wex­berg's c~Bibliography of Individual Psychology" (27, pp. 180-190).To remedy this situation and make the paper available in English wehave now provided a translation, which follows the present paper.

On Bergson. It was most likely through Schrecker that Adler be­came acquainted with the philosophy of Henri Bergson. During1910-1 I Schrecker took a course on personality with Bergson at theCollege de France, after which he returned to Vienna. When Adler'sNeurotic Constitution appeared early in 1912 it contained a footnotefollowing a paragraph on "apperceptive memory" which reads: "HereI must refer also to the fundamental theories of Bergson, withoutbeing able adequately to include his significant viewpoints" (3, p. 68,th~ second part of the sentence being included only in the first edi­tion, p. 32). Interestingly, Schrecker is not mentioned here, but in1912 also, Adler published Schrecker's monograph on Bergson (24) inthe series he founded right after separating from Freud and beforehe had started his own journal. Adler referred to this monograph inhis first mention of Schrecker, above, and again several years laterwhen he mentioned Bergson together with Vaihinger (7, p. 229n).

Schrecker's monograph is concerned with Bergson's concept ofman.Opposed to elementaristic analysis, Bergson sees man as an activebeing, striving toward a goal (24, p. 8) whose functions are all in theservice of life, similar to the views of James, Vaihinger and others(P.9). Schrecker considers "a tendency of psychological self-preserva­tion" to be a tacit presupposition in any psychological theory butfinds it explicit in Adler, and in this light examines, toward the endof the book, Adler's theory of neurosis in reference to Bergson (p. 52).

There are several further, minor publications by Schrecker per­taining to Adler's theories.

ADLER'S INTERPRETATION OF EARLY RECOLLECTIONS 141

Biographical dccount1

Who was Paul Schrecker who at the age of 24 contributed in ashort period so importantly to Individual Psychology? Born inVienna in 1889, he began his studies at the University there in 19°8,registered at first in courses in philosophy and psychology, spent aperiod in 1910-1 I in France as mentioned, and subsequently con­centrated on law, in which he received his degree in 1913.

After having received his law degree, Schrecker became manager ina large furniture manufacturing firm while continuing his interests inphilosophy and writing. Around 1925 he moved to Berlin attendingthe University there and receiving his Ph.D. in philosophy in 1928.From then until 1933 he had an academic research appointment there.With the accession of Hitler, Schrecker went to Paris. There heedited a book of letters and unpublished manuscripts by Leibnitz(1646-1716), the German organismic and teleologically orientedphilosopher, and collaborated on an edition of the complete works ofMalebranche (1638-1715), the French idealist.

In 1941 Schrecker came to the United States where he was on thefaculties of the New School for Social Research until 1945. ColumbiaUniversity until 1947, Swarthmore, Bryn Mawr and Haverford until1950, and the University of Pennsylvania until 1961. when he becameemeritus professor of philosophy. In 1948 he published Work andHistory (26) which was republished in paperback, in 1967 and 1971.In addition to articles in learned journals he also wrote for Harper'sMagazine and the Saturday Review oj Literature. He was listed in theInternational Who's Who, 1953, and the Directory oj dmerican Schol­ars, 1957. He died in Philadelphia. December 24, 1963.

IfSchrecker disappeared from the Adlerian scene after his early con­tributions this was probably because he was always more interestedin philosophy than in psychology. In his Bergson monograph heexplained that he discussed Adler rather than Freud in relation toBergson because he was more attracted to Adler's theory "from thephilosophical viewpoint-the only one which the author considershimself competent to take," From this viewpoint Adler's theory "hasthe advantage of unity and of agreement with philosophical theories"(24, p. 42n). Phyllis Bottome reported that there had been an es­trangement between Schrecker and Adler (19, p. 121). But Schreck-

7We wish to express our sincere appreciation to Mrs. Leah C. Furtmiiller,widow of Carl Furtmiiller, for her very generous help in tracing the sources andgathering most of the data on which this biographical account of Paul Schreckeris based.

HEINZ L. ANSBACHER

er's widow in Toronto, although she did not know him in these earlydays, writes: "I do not recall hearing him speak either of Adler or ofhis work, except with respect and admiration."s

HENRI BERGSON

What did Adler mean by the "fundamental theories of Bergson"which he considered significant? Henri Bergson (1859-1941) was theFrench philosopher who at the turn of the century offered an organis­mic alternative to the dominant mechanistic, causa-listic orientationin the sciences from which Adler had freed himself, and who couldthus contribute to a solid theoretical foundation for Individual Psy­chology. Although he has some romanticist and mystic aspects,Bergson is regarded as essentially a pragmatist (27, p. 579), whichwas also Adler's orientation. Walter Kaufmann counts Bergsonamong the great variety of pragmatic philosophers which includesPeirce, James, Dewey, F. S. C. Schiller, Vaihinger-and Nietzsche(21, p. 88). Adler himself spoke of Bergson's "important teachings"in connection with James (3, p. 68) and Vaihinger (7, p. 229).9

One of Bergson's basic assumptions was "the utilitarian characterof our mental functions, which are essentially turned towards action"(17, p. xvii). "We start from action ... our faculty of effecting changesin things, a faculty ... towards which all the powers of the organizedbody are seen to converge" (p. 67). This involves an orientationtoward the future. "It is to the future that I am tending, and couldI fix this indivisible present ... it is the direction of the future thatit would indicate" (p. 177).

Regarding science, Bergson shared the general pragmatic positionthat it is a tool in the service of man and not an absolute. "Theessential object of science is to enlarge our influence over things ...Even when it launches into theory, it is bound to adapt its behaviorto the general form of practice. However high it may rise, it must beready to fall back into the field of action, and at once get on its feet"(18, p. 330). Bergson sees mental disorder as "a breaking of the tiewhich binds this psychic life to its motor accompaniment, a weaken­ing ... of our attention to outward life" (17, p. xv).

Bergson's singular contribution among the pragmatists is hiswork on memory (17), where his main thesis is, "If there be memory

8Mrs. Anne M. Schrecker, personal communication, December 21, 1972.8Adler's relationship to the Anglo-American pragmatists has been shown in a

paper by Winetrout (29); that to Nietzsche, in a paper by the present author(15); and that to Vaihinger in a volume edited by the present author and hiswife (14, pp. 77-87).

ADLER'S INTERPRETATION OF EARLY RECOLLECTIONS 143

... it is with a view of utility" (P.70). "The function of the body isnot to store up recollections, but simply to choose ... the usefulmemory, that which may complete and illuminate the present situa­tion with a view to ultimate action" (pp. 233-234). Memory is thennot "disinterested"; its primary function is "to evoke all those pastperceptions which are analogous to the present perception ... and soto suggest to us that decision which is the most useful" (PP.302-303).On the other hand, "Consciousness ... sets aside all those memoryimages which cannot be coordinated with the present perception andare unable to form with it a useful combination" (pp. 96-97).

Particularly pertinent to the Adlerian technique of understandingearly recollections is the statement: "A few superfluous recollectionsmay succeed in smuggling themselves through the half-open door.These memories, messengers from the unconscious, remind us of whatwe are dragging behind us unawares" (18, p. 5). Adler recognized thatsuch "superfluous" recollections also have their "usefulness," namely,in helping the individual meet his problems in accordance with his lifestyle of which he is also unaware.

In summary, Bergson fully supports Adler's subsequent under­standing that recollections are tendentious and biased and in theservice of the purposes and goals of the individual, and that onemay therefore infer from a person's recollections his ideas and goals.

F. C. Bartlett (16), experimental psychologist, after Bergson andAdler came to similar conclusions. He found, "The description ofmemories as 'fixed and lifeless' is merely an unpleasant fiction"(p. 311). "Recall is inevitably determined by temperament andcharacter" (p. 308), and, "The past is being continually re-made,reconstructed in the interests of the present" (p. 309). Memory is"one achievement in the line of the ceaseless struggle to master andenjoy a world full of variety and rapid change" (p. 314). Yet there isin Bartlett's book no mention of Bergson, nor ofAdler-a commentaryon scientific separatism.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

In examining the background of the emphasis in Adlerian psy­chology on early recollections, we found that as early as 1907 Adlerheld that the person has an active part in what he remembers. Thefirst time Adler dealt with the meaning of early recollections in aparticular case was in examining his own early recollections, during1911-12, while working on his book, the Neurotic Constitution.

HEINZ L. ANSBACHER

During this period a young student, Paul Schrecker, participated inthe further development of Individual Psychology regarding earlyrecollections. He published the first paper on this topic from theAdlerian viewpoint, and he apparently brought the significant work ofHenri Bergson to Adler's attention. A brief biographical account ofSchrecker is given, and the important observations of Bergson regard­ing memory are presented.

The following passages by Adler (13) from his later years, 1933,would seem to be a fitting conclusion for the present paper.

It is understandable that at an early stage of my endeavours to throw lighton the impregnable unity of the psychic life I had to come upon the function andthe structure of memory. I was able to confirm the statements of earlier authorsthat memory is by no means to be regarded as the gathering-place of impressionsand sensations; that impressions do not persist as "mneme," [but that memory is]a partial expression of the power of the homogenous psychical life-of the self.The self, like perception~ has the task of fitting impressions into the completedstyle of life and using them in accordance with it (p. 203). We must accordinglyreckon on finding as many forms of memory as there are forms of style of life(p. 205). I am, above all, interested in those recollections that we regard as theearliest. The reason is that they throw light on events, real or imagined, correctlyreported or altered, that lie nearer to the creative construction of the style of lifein the first years of childhood, and that also to a large extent disclose the elabora­tion of these events by the style of life (pp. 208-209).

Adler had by then arrived at the conclusion: "I would never in­vestigate a personality without asking for the earliest memory"(14, p. 351).

REFERENCES10

L ADLER, A. Study of organ inferiority and its psychical compensation (1907).New York: Nerv. Ment. Dis. Pub!. Co., 1917.

'2. ADLER, A. Zur Kritik der Freudschen Sexualtheorie des Seelenlebens (1911).In A. Adler, C. Furtmiiller, & E. Wexberg (Eds.), Reilen und Bilden. 3rded. Munich: Bergmann, 1928. Pp.92-109.

3. ADLER, A. tJoer den nervosen Charakter (1912). Intro. by Wolfgang Metzger.Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, 1972.

4. ADLER, A. Individualpsychologische Ergebnisse beziiglich Schlafstorungen.Fortschr. Med., 1913, 31, 925-933.

~. ADLER, A. Ein Beitrag zur Psychologie der arztlichen Berufswahl (1913).in A. Adler, C. Furtmiiller, & E. Wexberg (Eds.), Rei/en und Bilden. 3rded. Munich: Bergmann, 1928. Pp. 341-344'

6. ADLER, A. Individual-psychological conclusions on sleep disturbances (1913).In Practice and theory of Individual Psychology. Totowa, N. J.: Little­field, Adams, 1968. Pp. 172-183.

lOA translation cited from an English source may have been modified in thepresent paper after the German original text.

ADLER'S INTERPRETATION OF EARLY RECOLLECTIONS 145

21.

22.

20.

12.

\

7. ADLER, A. On the role of the unconscious in neurosis (1913). In Practiceand theory of Individual Psychology. Totowa, N. J.: Littlefield, Adams,1968. Pp. 227-234.

8. ADLER, A. Lebensliige und Verantwortlichkeit in der Neurose und Psychose(1914). In Praxis und Theorie der Individualpsychologie. 4th ed. Munich:Bergmann, 1930. Pp. 170-177.

q. ADLER, A. Life-lie and responsibility in neurosis and psychosis (1914). InPractice and theory of Individual Psychology. Totowa, N. J.: Littlefield,Adams, 1968. Pp. 235-245.

ADLER, A. Das Problem der Homosexualitat (1917). Leipzig: Hirzel, 1930.ADLER, A. Problems of neurosis (1929). New York: Harper Torchbooks,

1964.ADLER, A. Something about myself. Childhood and Character, 1930, 7(7),

6-8.ADLER, A. Social interest: a challenge to mankind (1933). New York: Capri­

corn Books, 1964.ADLER, A. The Individual Psychlflogy QI Allred Adler. Ed. by H. L. & Rowena

R. Ansbacher. New York: Basic Books, 1956.ANSBACHER, H. L. Adler's "striving for power," in relation to Nietzsche.

J. I ndiv. Psychol., 1972, 28, 12-24.BARTLETT, F. C. Remembering: an experimental and social study. London:

Cambridge Univer. Press, 1932.BERGSON, H. Matter and memory (1896). New York: Macmillan, 1911.BERGSON, H. Creative evolution (1907). New York: Holt, 1911.BOTTOME, PHYLLIS. Alfred Adler: a portraitfrom life (1939). 3rd ed. New

York: Vanguard Press, 1957.DREIKURS, R. The psychological interview in medicine. Amer. J. Indiv.

Psychol., 1952-53, 10, 99-122. Also in Psychodynamics, psychotherapy,and counseling. Chicago, Ill.: Alfred Adler Inst. Chicago, 1967, Pp. 125­152 •

KAUFMANN, W. Nietzsche: philosopher, psychologist, anti-Christ. 3rd ed.New York: Random House Vintage Books, 1968.

MOSAK, H. H. Early recollections as a projective technique. J. proj. Tech.,1958, 22, 3°2-31 I. Also in G. Lindzey & C. S. Hall (Eds.), Theories ofpersonality. New York: Wiley) 1965. Pp.105-113.

NUNBERG, H., & FEDERN, E. (Eds.) Minutes of the Yienna PsychoanalyticSociety. Vol. I. z906-z908. New York: Int. Univer. Press, 1962.

SCHRECKER, P. Henri Bergsons Philosophie air Personlichkeit: ein Essayuber analytische und intuitive Psychologie. Munich: Reinhardt) 1912.

SCHRECKER, P. Die individualpsychologische Bedeutung der ersten Kind­heitserinnerungen. Zbl. Psychoanal. Psychother., 1913-1914, 4, 121-130.

SCHRECKER, P. Work and history: an essay on the structure oj cioi/ization.Princeton, N. J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1948; Gloucester, Mass.: PeterSmith, 1967; New York: Crowell, 1971.

THILLY, F. A history of philosophy. Rev. by L. Wood. 3rd ed. New York:Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1957.

WEXBERG, E. (Ed.) Handbuch der Individualpsych%gie (1926). Vol. 2.Amsterdam: Bonset, 1966.

WINETROUT, K. Adlerian psychology and pragmatism. J. InaifJ. Psychol.,1968, 24, 5-2 4.

26.

28.

J6.

23·

10.I I.